c4countdown

If you were in a building held by terrorists and you had to kill somebody or the terrorists would kill 5 other people, what would you do?

If you saw a train hurtling towards a group of children on a railway line, oblivious to this, and the train was unable to stop but you had the option to switch the train's path so it only killed one kid, would you change it?

If you knew that you could sacrifice your life to save several others from a certain death (idk, can't be bothered to think of a scenario) would you sacrifice yourself?

Then how come we don't just kill a random person and donate his body organs to help save people who desperately need them to stay alive? Think of the lives that could be saved! Surely this would be the moral thing to do?

I couldn't really think of an answer. I mean of course that would be wrong but it's sort of a good point isn't it?

I would do what's better for my own self!

These questions were featured in a bbc news article last month, so if you'd like a read on it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7739493.stm

Bit too late in the night for my head to come up with sensible answers, but I think my initial thoughts were:

Jimmy wrote:If you were in a building held by terrorists and you had to kill somebody or the terrorists would kill 5 other people, what would you do?

I wouldn't kill, but the term 'had' is a bit open-ended. It doesn't matter how many are killed by the terrorists, I can't think of a way whereby they could prove 5 more wouldn't be killed unless you murdered someone - ergo it's a bloodbath but my conscience is clean (until I die anyway).

Jimmy wrote:If you saw a train hurtling towards a group of children on a railway line, oblivious to this, and the train was unable to stop but you had the option to switch the train's path so it only killed one kid, would you change it?

Yes I would. Given the judicial system in this country I'd probably get done for manslaughter, but if I was certain (beyond reasonable doubt) that the group would certainly die (or suffer the same consequences as the individual) then I'd made the switch. Assuming I didn't just stand there in anyway.

Jimmy wrote:If you knew that you could sacrifice your life to save several others from a certain death (idk, can't be bothered to think of a scenario) would you sacrifice yourself?

Depends on the situation, but I'm quite cowardly so probably not even though I may feel I should.

Jimmy wrote:Then how come we don't just kill a random person and donate his body organs to help save people who desperately need them to stay alive? Think of the lives that could be saved! Surely this would be the moral thing to do?

I can't imagine how killing a random person would ever be the moral thing to do. I suspect that bit was tagged on to the article to get people thinking by winding them up though.

I wonder who in their right mind came up with these questions!

Dan Vanniasingham wrote:These questions were featured in a bbc news article last month, so if you'd like a read on it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7739493.stm

Oh ok, thanks. I can't be fucked to read it now since it's like 4 in the morning but yeah it probably explains it a lot better than I do.

Jimmy, what makes you think you can read them at all?

Q. You have Osama Bin Laden, Robert Mugabe and Gyles Brandreth at gunpoint but only two bullets. Who do you shoot?

...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...

A. Brandreth, twice, just to be sure.

I would rather shoot Osama, and I'm not afraid to admit that!

I don't think anyone would be, frankly!

Phil Reynolds wrote:Q. You have Osama Bin Laden, Robert Mugabe and Gyles Brandreth at gunpoint but only two bullets. Who do you shoot?

A. Brandreth, twice, just to be sure.

How? You don't have a gun.

(Assuming "gunpoint" means "really close")

Kirk Bevins wrote: How? You don't have a gun.

(Assuming "gunpoint" means "really close")

Have you mistaken this for the Asperger's thread?

I don't know what Kirk was thinking, Charlie!

Jason Larsen wrote:I don't know what Kirk was thinking, Charlie!

Again, try the other thread.

Kirk Bevins wrote:(Assuming "gunpoint" means "really close")

An assumption based on what exactly? According to my (admittedly non-ODE2r) dictionary:

gunpoint n 1 the muzzle of a gun. 2 at gunpoint. being under or using the threat of being shot.

The obvious answer being "Gyles Brandreth, twice", right?

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:(Assuming "gunpoint" means "really close")

An assumption based on what exactly? According to my (admittedly non-ODE2r) dictionary:

gunpoint n 1 the muzzle of a gun. 2 at gunpoint. being under or using the threat of being shot.

OK - I tried being clever but it backfired. Excuse the pun.

Charlie, I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean.

Jason Larsen wrote:Charlie, I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean.

Roflcopter!

You're a funny guy, Charlie!

Jason Larsen wrote:You're a funny guy, Charlie!

Do you find anyone unfunny?

You all are funny here, but then again everybody knows it!

That organ donation question is a bit strange. I 've seen it before and wondered why you would have to involve a random stranger. The version I read had several different people all requiring different organs, so the random stranger could supply each one. But surely one of the organ-needers could just sacrifice their own life and provide the others with what they need.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote: How? You don't have a gun.

(Assuming "gunpoint" means "really close")

Have you mistaken this for the Asperger's thread?

Brilliant.

Who donated an organ?